Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank
PDF file.
(Tarzan)
It has been easy, it's only been posted to FR countless times and seems to come up in most every debate. Just happens I'm talking between calls at work and don't have the link here. It's one of the leading reasons for debate on a number of fronts and has been attempted to be explained away in some rather creative ways.
I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack
It's not an ad hominem attack. Soo willing to play the martyr and root for someone's sympathy as though you were being maligned. Give us a break.
Previous papers from Dr. Humphreys, one of which I critiqued in detail some months ago, were shoddy in methodology and data analysis
Heard this one before too. Amazing how you require proof on something that is published and then expect to be taken at face value on something that is not when your ideology is at question. Hmm. Seems like the same doublestandard I'm accustomed to. And the same "take my opinion, please" proof that I'm used to.
The cure for shoddy science is people that examine the science. Just like the cure for certain religions claiming to be Christian is scripture. The public is largely dumb and unaware. That is the only reason charlotans thrive. But when they start getting a little educated, the lights come on and the liberals and evolutionists scurry back under the cabinets - albeit screaming - they scurry nonetheless.
Is their much evidence of life before "I Love Lucy?"
Maybe they had round-trip tickets?
Genesis 7:8-15
8. Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
9. male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
10. And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13. On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.
14. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.
15. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
If you can only receive C-Span, shoot yourself.
Although phrased a trifle rudely, this question is the most intelligent on this particular thread.
One, I didn't say anything about the flood, only about how fossils come about. They come about through rapid burial in pliable soil which then sets up and hardens. It's the same way molds are made in principle. No rapid burial means no preservation of tissue and no fossil.
Who, by the way, said Plesiosaurs and trilobytes are extinct? Can you prove it?
How come Noah didn't take any dinosaurs with him in the ark?
How do you know he didn't? Where does it say he didn't. I can't find it. And as far as whether scripture mentions the beasts or not. Who says it doesn't? You don't find the word dinosaur or Tyranosaur, etc; but, those are modern names given to the beasts. The catalogs of beasts that we have are generally ALL modern and ALL follow modern naming conventions because NO one had done it in the distant past - at least not to the extent that such a catalog survived to compare notes against. There are things mentioned in scripture that you and I are clueless about because we haven't seen them before. Just as there are things in nature we are clueless about because we have never seen them before. Do giant Squids exist? People have been doing searches for them in the oceans for years. But no one has witnessed a giant squid and gotten proof of it on camera. Are they extinct - or just largely living where you can't see?
Science has a history of making statements of fact that turn out to be not so factual. It would be better if egos silenced themselves and the facts were presented rather than claims based on popular opinion. Lest we believe the spotted owl to be extinct or near extinct...
... Just happens I'm talking between calls at work and don't have the link here...
Dog ate your homework. Yeah yeah. Get back to me when you decide to take some responsibility for what you post.
I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack
It's not an ad hominem attack. Soo willing to play the martyr and root for someone's sympathy as though you were being maligned. Give us a break.
Then you, sir, are an urepentent liar.
But when they start getting a little educated, the lights come on and the liberals and evolutionists scurry back under the cabinets - albeit screaming - they scurry nonetheless.
He can't come up with the material to which he referred; he flung set of lies he won't retract; and now he says we're scurrying!
Any time you have something of substance to post, instead of this vacuous chest-beating intended to distract from your post's lotal lack of content, get back to me, blowhard.
LOL. They don't and they aren't using trig, they're using physics and do not know all the variables. Sorry. The speed at which light moves is dependant upon the substance it is moving through and the resistance applied. Science has no idea what light from distant stars might be filtered through. It is thus impossible to determine distance. A duh moment here. Thus the distance becomes an argument of ideology - not a statement of fact. But that doesn't stop the ideologues from stating their screwups as facts.
Well, the next time I am in interGALACTIC space I'll take some samples of the void.
Good, while you're at it try observing all the particulate matter that exists in a path between earth and the stars you're measuring distance to. Probably out to take temperature readings as well and check for existance of solar wind.. wouldn't want wind shift to make you look dumb now would we. Hmm. How many more things can we imagine as problematic here....
I'd love to see your "What science needs is to be free of the idealogues and otherwise full of people who do science rather than speculation" response.
No, what you would love is that it was 20 years ago when people didn't pay any attention and ya'll could just get by with saying anything you pleased. Tough to bs people when under an increasingly skeptical review by anyone with an interest.
Now this is weird. The first time I previewed this post, the < and the > showed up in the Preview box. I edited the comment, and suddenly those characters won't show, only the coding.
Then I previewed again after adding the last paragraph and they show up again. Weird
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.